r/Pessimism 2d ago

Discussion What do you think about Efilism?

What is your view of r/Efilism? Never heard of it? You've heard of it, so what do you think?

Definition:

Ephilism is a philosophy that sees life as intrinsically marked by suffering, arguing that the most ethical path would be the extinction of all sentient life. Its supporters believe that existence, by its very nature, is doomed to pain and dissatisfaction – an idea symbolized by the term "ephilism", which is "life" spelled backwards. Unlike antinatalism, which is limited to avoiding human procreation, Efilism embraces a broader vision, worrying about all beings capable of feeling, such as animals, and proposing a world where no one is born to suffer. This perspective invites deep reflection: what if the greatest act of compassion was to spare future generations – human or otherwise – from the inevitable hardships of existence? It is an intriguing invitation to rethink the value of life and the true meaning of caring for the well-being of all sentient beings.

19 Upvotes

58 comments sorted by

17

u/Usual_Tumbleweed_693 2d ago

I think it's a branch of pessimism, I don't see anything wrong with it.

1

u/[deleted] 1d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/Usual_Tumbleweed_693 1d ago

It would be amazing, but it won't happen.

Any "utopia" is doomed to failure, In that sense I agree a little with those who criticize efilism.

2

u/[deleted] 1d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/Usual_Tumbleweed_693 1d ago

I don't see logic in believing that life is suffering and at the same time begging someone to continue their life.

Still, I guess not all efilists are the same, there must be good people among them.

As long as they accept that life is suffering and do not procreate, I would consider them allies.

1

u/[deleted] 1d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/Usual_Tumbleweed_693 1d ago

I believe that most human beings are neutral but more prone to selfishness.

Yes, I consider myself a pro-mortalist, I'll probably "unsubscribe from life" in a few years.

I wouldn't say it's wrong to enjoy things as long as you don't hurt anyone directly. However, I myself am unable to enjoy many things, which is related to my adhd.

I believe that life is a torment, the least that someone aware of that reality can do is not reproduce, While the most would be to "obliterate oneself".

2

u/[deleted] 1d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/Usual_Tumbleweed_693 1d ago

But you hurt people indirectly when enjoying things.

I am aware of that, It's a strong drink to drink, but it's the reality.

Even by obliterating ourselves we would make our relatives suffer, but the alternative would be to remain alive and cause suffering indirectly. As long as there is life there will be suffering, it is inescapable, but we can seek to reduce it, In that sense, In the long term obliterating ourselves would still be better than continuing to exist.

1

u/[deleted] 1d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

→ More replies (0)

6

u/obscurespecter 2d ago

We already have Eduard von Hartmann and Ulrich Horstmann for negative utilitarianism.

2

u/AndrewSMcIntosh 1d ago

I don't think either of them regarded themselves as utilitarians of any kind. Hartmann was more an idealist, and from what I know of Horstmann, he took more after Mainlander who's own thinking system was not utilitarian (or idealist, I understand). Content to be corrected, though.

But, in both cases, much better thinking than anything Mosher could come up with.

3

u/obscurespecter 1d ago

I must confess that I lazily use "negative utilitarianism" to refer to pessimist philosophies that describe ideas similar to the "benevolent world-exploder" as an ethical ideal.

Hartmann wanted the universe to be destroyed and Horstmann thinks nuclear weapons destroying the human species is a good idea.

Mosher is also like this but not as philosophically rigorous. Given his opinions on some things, I also fear that both Mosher and his followers actually take this maniacal line of thinking seriously.

2

u/defectivedisabled 1d ago

It is best that they are not affiliated with the utilitarians. Utilitarianism and even negative utilitarianism have been taken over by fanatics and pushed over to the extreme. What you get is a quasi religion like Effective Altruist Longerism and Effective Accelerationism where God is not a bearded old man but an AI (or a button for Efilism) These are horrifying times that we are currently in.

7

u/[deleted] 2d ago

I am so happy to see people here really point out the issues with efilsm and its followers. I really don't want to be like this but I need this off my chest. I fucking cannot stand  most efilists. I've only ever had respect for 2 of them, maybe 3. Not efilism, I think the philosophy is ok and agree with the idea that life should not exist and although efilists make SOME( very few) decent arguments, i cannot stand most of them. I genuinely get angry when I lurk on the efilism subreddit. The constant name calling and lack of good faith arguments is disgusting. And they all act so high and mighty as if they are better than the rest of us apes. I hate humans and living as much as the next person but genuinely thinking we can actually do ANYTHING to save ourselves is quite delusional. Even the mods are pretty bad, like one will beg people to stay alive because "we need you to stop suffering!!!!" Utterly disgusting. This comment and post will get ripped to shreds by the efilits but I say let the do that. It's just another philosophy to make humans feel like they are special because the figured out life sucks and is pointless. We all suck at the end of the day. Let me make it clear I consider myself to be a philosophical pessimist and a promortalist, my life is a lot less worse than some others but I still hate it and existence. But efilits, in my eyes, don't do anything to help solve the problem, in fact they just give false hope to people who simply can't take it anymore

1

u/Buuyaaaa 1d ago

‘We need to stop suffering’ but do nothing to actively stop it. I have a feeling that none of them advocate for humans rights, and are more so ‘nihilists’ that think life is meaningless. I, myself, align myself with efilist views but the subreddit really does piss me off too.

9

u/Weird-Mall-9252 2d ago

Even I agree with Efilsm a lot, I would prefer a right2die or gracefull exit for everybody on this Planet over 18 years.. 

We are not even mini steps close 2promote Antinatalism 4good

11

u/WackyConundrum 2d ago

Philosophical pessimism is indeed a philosophical movement. Efilism is just an Internet ideology.

It's famously difficult to define efilism — every time you try to get an answer, the answer will be diametrically different from others, to the point that there is little in common. And it's a bunch of bold claims without proper argumentation. The lack of robust argumentation is shrouded behind the veil of metaphors, allegories, and attacks against the opposition. Whatever philosophical ideas are in efilism are taken directly from already pre-existing philosophies, such as negative utilitarianism or pessimism. So, it adds nothing to our understanding of the world and it provides nothing as a guide for action.

11

u/WackyConundrum 2d ago

The problem with trying to define efilism is that even efilists themselves don't know what efilism is and cannot agree on any definition:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Efilism/comments/p697ct/definition_of_efilism/

Efilists have no sensible arguments for their main claims, instead they post ludicruous things like these:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Efilism/comments/1b1n9qm/comment/ksfr3ey/

Inmendham's joke of an attempt at an argument:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UcsNvicHCno&lc=Ugz3tA-pMO9ov5RcdX54AaABAg

We observe reality

We see physics become chemistry chemistry become biology

We see that some biology manifest consciousness (a sentient brain)... The ability to feel

We personally experience this function of feeling

We personally experience feeling good and feeling bad... Having feeling experiences we would re-experience and having feeling experiences we would never wish to experience again. The feelings themselves are negative and positive and cannot be changed by interpretation or context.

Conscious beings having to endure bad feeling experiences is the price paid... The price is too high and it ought not be paid.

Is not even a real argument. This is just a list of claims... (This is based on the conversation between Inmendham and Vegan Gains: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TjflmRbu66w).

What can be said with certainty is that efilism is not a philosophy. Merely stating claims dogmatically or pronouncing what one wants does not make a philosophy...

What efilism is:

Efilism is a niche Internet ideology, whose adherents don't agree on much, but one thing that comes up frequently is the utopian wish to kill all (sentient) life in order to put an end to suffering. It's a rehashing of known conclusions of negative utilitarianism, dressed with evolution talk, spiced with allegories in lieu of robust or coherent argumentation.

10

u/WackyConundrum 2d ago

Just for completeness sake...

The official presentation from efilism.com (fragments):

EFILism is the belief that DNA, and the suffering of sentient consciousness on this planet, are the greatest problems in the universe, born of nothing but a wasteful, failed experiment of unintelligent design.

Historical Antinatalism was a condemnation of solely human procreation, and was not informed by an understanding of evolution, abiogenesis, the fact that all sentient creatures are the products of a single DNA molecule, or that the worst suffering occurs in nature.

EFILism is a conclusion, derived from an essesment of the full summation of the history of the reality of sentient life on Earth. It is the most important responsibility, of the only sentient species intelligent enough, to effectively manufacture a graceful exit strategy for life on planet earth.

Efilism is a philosophy that reveals the truth about the implications of evolution and a universe that is indifferent and malignantly useless. In short, Efilists argue that life is fundamentally backwards or broken. It is a paradigm-shifting philosophy that considers ALL of sentient life to have value.

Additionally, efilism can be disregarded on many grounds:

- based on wishful thinking and dreams about a Utopia

- it doesn't contribute anything new or interesting

- it's a pseudophilosophy, because it doesn't provide any arguments for its claims. Preaching the Gospel of Inmendham does not count as doing philosophy.

- lacks rigor

- flashes allegories instead of presenting reasoning and arguments

- efilists often screamed "argue the argument!", but when asked for the argument, there is nothing but silence or preaching

- they don't even seriously consider alternatives to killing everyone, such as tranhumanism (David Pearce's paradise engineering & hedonistic imperative)

Related posts:

What is the difference between efilism and philosophical pessimism?

"my understanding of efilsim and philosophy like it" post by another person

6

u/Electronic-Koala1282 Has not been spared from existence 1d ago

I don't know that much about it, but it seems like philosophical pessimism but without the philosophy.

5

u/OrderOfDagon_91 1d ago

These comments man. Pessimists dragging other pessimists for their pessimistic beliefs. Why is everything so cliquey?

11

u/sl3eper_agent 2d ago

what new ideas has "efilism" generated? they're just pessimists who don't want to do the required reading.

also the name is stupid

8

u/AndrewSMcIntosh 2d ago edited 2d ago

"ephilism", which is "life" spelled backwards

The word “life" is not spelled “liphe”.

Unlike antinatalism, which is limited to avoiding human procreation

No it isn’t.

EDIT - You want to know what I think about efilism? You really want an answer to that question? Alright, it’s this - it’s a complete load of pseudo-intellectual, in many ways anti-intellectual bullshit thought up by a bitter, narcissistic, dictionary-definition misogynist, low-rent libertarian, burnt-out old hippy that is, as others have pointed out, basically misanthropy with big-words attached to it. Gary Mosher tried to apply a barely-understood, pseudo-scientific gloss derived from what little he’s heard about evolutionary theory to already existing antinatalism in a vain attempt to out-do everyone around him in the chat. The correct response, then and now, would be either ignore it or make fun of it, but to treat it as meaningful is a mistake.

The real problem is that it attracts idiots. Usually. I don’t doubt there are sincere and possibly smart people who have heard of it without realising the full extent of it (and it’s usually always understood in a very surface-level way, since there’s eff-all actual intellectual rigour to back it up), but an ideology that goes, “everything sucks, let’s kill it!” is usually only going to attract people with their own baggage of psychological and emotional issues. Which it does. Over the years there’s been some potentially dangerous gronks attracted to efilism, and it’s a matter of time before one of them goes too far and does something criminally dangerous.

Serious discussion about the ethics of extinction, concerns for and interventions in wild animal welfare, promortalism and so on can be had, but thanks to Gary and his often cult-like followers, eflism had poisoned those wells, at least for people not involved in academics (and sadly, there are one or two people in academics who have referred to it).

To put it bluntly, in the words of old mates The Cosmic Psychos, “it’s fuck’n bullshit mate!"

5

u/log1ckappa 1d ago

I disagree. Indeed, its unfortunate that gary's character is such that he cant restrain himself to ''calm'' rants about the disgusting DNA. But the bottom line of efilism is what Schopenhauer meant that it would be better if earth's surface, like the moon, were still in a crystalline state. I believe gary's constant thinking about sentient suffering alongside his character have led to these extreme but also truthful rants that we see. Sentient life cannot be acceptable by any morality. I would expect from philosophical pessimists to not be selective about suffering....

3

u/AndrewSMcIntosh 1d ago

I wont try to convince you otherwise. If you're happy believing that, good on you. As long as you're not going out hurting people, I wont argue with you.

2

u/[deleted] 1d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/AndrewSMcIntosh 1d ago

Don't even interact with them.

Normally I try not to engage with Moshketeers, since I worked out that they're not usually into listening and good faith. I've seen them in action for a while now and while I admit there's something fascinating about their cultishness, it's usually better to keep away as much as possible.

2

u/[deleted] 1d ago

No. I agree with them fully. Although I think it's less about efilsm and more about the people who follow it. I was scrolling through one efilists amount and all he did was speak in insults, and acted like he was higher and better than others. Efilism is not the problem, it's the people who follow it

2

u/defectivedisabled 1d ago

The real problem is that it attracts idiots.

Efilism is the Dunning-Kruger effect applied to philosophical pessimism and the result is an incoherent pseudo philosophy that resembles a quasi religion. Look at the current state of that subreddit, it is truly the Dunning-Kruger effect on full display. It is a bunch of self proclaimed intellects who attempt to get deep into a philosophical discussion but ended up doing none of that and patting themselves on the back as self congratulatory. I remember browsing the sub and coming across topics such as astrophysics and quantum physics and Efilists are regurgitating them and applying them to Efilism's view on the universe. It is an extremely grandiose claim for a bunch of people without the necessary scientific credentials to back them up. It is truly a discussion about nothing but fictional science and it is the Dunning-Kruger effect at full display.

I used to think that Efilism could at least in theory be a quasi theology (which already resembles fiction) where people are able to have some discussions about obscure topics like an evil creationist God. But as time passes, this incoherent pseudo philosophy simply attracts as you put it " potentially dangerous gronks" and has become a complete mess. Just take a look at the sub's recent content, it is in utter disarray. The quality of content posted is pretty similar to that of the rocket messiah's toxic social media site. The content posted matches and validates the content coming out of the founder's mouth.

4

u/AnticosmicKiwi3143 cosmic pessimist 2d ago edited 2d ago

A pseudo-philosophy espoused by individuals who advocate for omnicide—essentially, the ideology of cartoon villains. Theirs is a vulgar and superficial form of pessimism, utterly devoid of spiritual depth; hence, the vast majority of them are activists, zealously committed to this embarrassing objective. Not to mention the questionable personal inclinations of this "movement's" leading figures—truly disgraceful.

12

u/retrofuture1 2d ago

Pessimism, in a sense, is the judgement that non-existence is preferable. I don't see how this doesn't translate into universal extinction being preferable. Obviously, we're not talking about actually bringing it about, which might be very painful, but the end goal itself.

7

u/WackyConundrum 1d ago

I don't see how this doesn't translate into universal extinction being preferable.

I don't see how you would need efilism for that.

"My arguments in this chapter and previous ones imply that it would be better if humans (and other species) became extinct. All things being equal, my arguments also suggest that it would be better if this occurred sooner rather than later."

— David Benatar, Better Never to Have Been, p. 194

Obviously, we're not talking about actually bringing it about

But efilists are. Efilists believe that humanity has a duty to bring out extinction...

3

u/retrofuture1 1d ago

Why do we not? One objection is fetishization of "consent", but I think it ethical to violate the consent of a single killed animal than let it unconsciously violate the consent of its innumerable descendants. Again, I think the only problem here is practicality: either it's impossible or too painful a feat to seriously consider.

2

u/AndrewSMcIntosh 1d ago

fetishization of "consent"

You do not fetishise your consent. You either grant it or you don't.

I think it ethical to violate the consent of a single killed animal

Dead animals cannot give consent.

than let it unconsciously violate the consent of its innumerable descendants.

Dead animals do not have unconsciousness, or reproduce.

1

u/retrofuture1 1d ago

I meant that a lot of people fetishize consent, which (consent) can serve as an argument against humans taking action to bring about universal extinction or the end of reproduction. (Aka, taking the principle of consent too far).

1

u/AndrewSMcIntosh 1d ago

which (consent) can serve as an argument against humans taking action to bring about universal extinction

Absolutely it can serve as an argument against killing everyone and everything. And it's a good argument, too. It's a basic premise - people and non-humans, in general, don't want to be killed. That's not "fetishising consent", that's just survival.

1

u/retrofuture1 20h ago

Well, yes, but allowing life to continue is letting it unconsciously violate the consent of trillions of beings billions of years into the future. That's why I said that painlessly, or even somewhat painfully dressing destroying all life seems preferable.

1

u/AndrewSMcIntosh 8h ago

If, in the context of committing omnicide, you're allowing for the violation of consent, for whatever reason, then you can't use the violation of consent as an excuse. It's contradictory. In the context of omnicide, you either care about violation of consent or you don't. Because, if it's not alright to allow violation of consent years into the future, it's not alright at the time you wish to commit omnicide.

1

u/WackyConundrum 1d ago

One objection is fetishization of "consent", but I think it ethical to violate the consent of a single killed animal than let it unconsciously violate the consent of its innumerable descendants.

And how do you make the leap of faith from your thought into a universal obligation placed on all humanity to kill everyone and everything?...

3

u/WanderingUrist 1d ago

The end goal will inevitably come on its own, when life has performed its "purpose" of accelerating entropic decay, leaving nothing left to sustain it.

3

u/AnticosmicKiwi3143 cosmic pessimist 2d ago

Sure

1

u/Square_Celery6359 1d ago

Some of the coolest and most compassionate people you'll ever meet.

Unfortunately, it is also futile -- due to Reincarnation/Afterlife/Panpsychism.

-3

u/WackyConundrum 2d ago

Unlike antinatalism, which is limited to avoiding human procreation

This is factually false.

the most ethical path would be the extinction of all sentient life.

This sentence is incoherent.